directer oftheciaandambassador rice -- >> bottom line, more disturbedded now than before. lou: in a statement following that meeting with the republican senators and acting cia director michael morale, ambassador rice said this, "we explained the talking appointments provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. neither i nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the american people at any stage in this process." now even greater confusion on the issue of changed rice's talking points. the most recent explanation and revision comes from cia sitting director who told senators the fbi removed references of al-qaeda from the talking points, but at four o'clock eastern time today, cia officials said morale misspoke and that, in fact, the cia deleted references, not the fbi. stay tuned, as they say. joining us now, former u.s. ambassador not united nations, john bolten, andrew mccarthy, former federal prosecutor who convicted the blind s

the united states was rising and security was -- >> and the answer could be wehadciaagentsin that area -- >> absolutely. >> -- that needed to be protected. ambassador susan rice met with her strongest critics on capitol hill today to answer questions about benghazi, and the verdict was decidedly negative from her adversaries. senator john mccain, lindsey graham and senator ayotte left the meeting, here's the word, troubled. let's watch. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get concerning evidence that was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulate. >> i'm more disturbed now than i was before. if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations, and you can say i don't want to give bad information. >> i'm more troubled today because it's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. >> well, then we go back to michael here. what i'm hearing today is ambassador rice when she went on "

that killed four americans. >> a very candid discussion with the director ofthecia. weare significantly troubled by many the answers we got. the evidence was overwhelming leading up to the attack on our consulates. whether ambassador rice was informed sufficiently is a correct depiction of the events that took place. but the intervention was incorrect when she said it was a spontaneous demonstration. it was not, and there was compelling evidence that the time that that was not the case, including statements by libyans as well as other americans. mortars and rocket-propelled grenades were not spontaneous demonstrations. >> i think it does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight, -- in real time [indiscernible] anybody looking at the threat in libya, it would jump out at you. i am disappointed in our intelligence community. with a little bit of inquiring and curiosity, and think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related to a video that created a disturbance that turned into a riot, at the end of the day, we are going to get to the bottom of this.

was wrong. ambassador rice said today -- absolutely it was wrong. i do not understandtheciasayingclearly that that information was wrong. they knew by the 22nd it was wrong, yet they have not served that -- cleared up with the american people in concord to say that they were wrong. -- to say that they were wrong. what troubles me also is that the changes made to the unclassified talking points were misleading. just to be clear, when you have a position where you're ambassador to the u.n., you go well beyond unclassified talking points in your daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. that is troubling to me as well why she would not have as. i am the person that does not go anything about this. i will go on every show. it is not just the talking plans that were on classified but it was part of her responsibility as an ambassador to the u.n. and she reviewed much more than that. >> we need to do a lot more to e. we do not have the fbi interviews conducted -- conducted after the attacks. we do not have the basic information about what it is said the night of the attack that was